Horncastle helmet fragment
Horncastle helmet fragment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
The Horncastle helmet fragment is a tiny but interesting slice of Anglo-Saxon history. Its rich construction of silver, gold, and garnets, only hints at the likely richness of the helmet it once adorned; even the richest Anglo-Saxon helmets yet known, from Sutton Hoo and Staffordshire, have more rudimentary crest terminals than the Horncastle fragment. This 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment was purchased for £15,000, and is now on display in Lincolnshire.
This article draws from all available sources to describe the fragment and place it in proper context. It passed a good article review last year, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Support from PM
This fairly brief article is in excellent shape, up to Usernameunique's high standards. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Much obliged again, Peacemaker67. Thanks for the support. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Support Comment from Tim riley
A most readable and interesting article, clearly written with considerable erudition. I expect to be supporting, but a few minor points on the prose first:
- "likely was once attached" – unexpected and slightly jarring Americanism. The normal BrE construction is "probably was once attached". Ditto for the four *"likely"s later in the article (although for some reason "most likely" in this construction is not uncommon in BrE although the unadorned "likely" is).
- Done. Had actually been wondering about this, after this edit by Espresso Addict; before that, I had no idea that there was a difference in usage between probably and likely.
- Of the style guides I most often use, the 2015 revision of Fowler's Modern English Usage identifies "likely" as pretty much AmE. The Guardian's style guide says:
- In the UK, if not the US, using likely in such contexts as "they will likely win the game" sounds unnatural at best; there is no good reason to use it instead of probably. If you really must do so, however, just put very, quite or most in front of it and all will, very likely, be well.
- The AmE usage is arguably superior to the BrE, judged by two of Fowler's five criteria: "Prefer the short word to the long. Prefer the Saxon word to the Romance", but be that as it may, current BrE usage goes for the longer, Romance word. (I'll shut up now.) Tim riley talk 06:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- "can not be conclusively determined" – "can not" is probably OK but "cannot" is surely the normal way of writing it.
- Done.
- "and perhaps York" – this is fine as it stands in the lead, I think, but in the main text it seems to me to call out for a word of explanation – perhaps a footnote – to explain why you say "perhaps".
- Done.
- "venerated, eulogised..." – a splendid line, but to have a quotation like this with no inline attribution leaves it rather in a vacuum. Helpful to your readers to put it in context by identifying the author: "as the archaeologist XYZ writes..." or some such.
- Done (and in the related sections for Benty Grange helmet, Pioneer helmet, and Guilden Morden boar).
- "turn of the millennium Gundestrup" – as " turn of the millennium" is used as a compound attributive adjective I think it would benefit from hyphenation.
- Done. Had already done this in the related sections just mentioned, but must have missed this one.
Nothing of great consequence there. I'll look in again and, I hope, add my support. –Tim riley talk 19:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review and comments, Tim riley. Adopted all your suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
FunkMonk
- Will have a look soon. At first glance, compared to how the rest of the article looks, the last section could probably be split into two paragraphs? Looks a bit like a wall of text now. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, FunkMonk. Made it a second paragraph. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
- " and set against the skull" Why skull and not head? Makes it seem as if it is depicted as skeletal.
- That was the wording in the source, but you're right, "head" works just as well. Done.
- "found by a Mr D. Turner" Being such a recent find, should be possible to find the full name?
- I've done some searching on this (e.g., looking for members of Lincolnshire metal detecting groups) without much luck. The next step might be to send out a couple "Hey, do you happen to know a Mr. D. Turner" emails, but I'd like to hold off on this for the time being.
- "As required of found objects" Required for? Otherwise it seems like the object has to do something?
- Done.
- Link boar and dragon at first mentions? Also Anglo-Saxon.
- Done.
- The full name of the subject is not mentioned anywhere in the article body. Could perhaps be good to mention it at the beginning?
- Done.
- Not sure about this but should "in their stable of symbols" be staple?
- I mean "stable" in the sense of "collection."
FunkMonk, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Image review
Didn't notice any license issues. All images appear to be in good sections and have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- Spotchecks not carried out
- all links to sources are working
- Formats:
- In the bibliography, the source "Record ID: PAS-5D5B56 - EARLY MEDIEVAL helmet" is listed out of alphabetical sequence.
- Done.
- WorldCat provides a OCLC for Chaney: 490832405
- Added ISBN 0-520-01401-4. Technically it's a 9-digit "Standard Book Number", since it's a 1970 book, but adding an extra 0 at the front seems to work.
- All sources appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability, as required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review, Brianboulton. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:25, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley
- This is a first rate article, although I think 'Horncastle boar's head' would be a more informative title than 'Horncastle helmet fragment'.
- "turn-of-the-millennium". I took this at first to mean around year 1000, whereas I see you mean turn of BC/AD.
- "including the twentieth". It might be worth adding that the twentieth was stationed in Britain (Foster, p. 19).
- "The boar nonetheless persisted in continental Germanic tradition". I would delete the word "nonetheless"
- "Its return to prominence in the Anglo-Saxon period, as represented by the boars from Benty Grange, Wollaston, Guilden Morden, and Horncastle, may therefore suggest the post-Roman reintroduction of a Germanic tradition from Europe, rather than the continuation of a tradition in Britain through 400 years of Roman rule.". This correctly quotes Foster, but the word "reintroduction" implies that there was a Germanic tradition in pre-Roman Iron Age Britain, and this cannot be right. So far as I can discover neither Foster nor any other writer says that there was German influence on Iron Age Britain. Leslie Webster in Anglo-Saxon Art treats the Germans and Celts as separate peoples and cultures. He discusses Celtic influence and says that Celtic style ornament appears on eighth century Anglo-Saxon metalwork, albeit rarely (p. 105). Maybe Foster meant the reintroduction of the boar tradition and used the word 'German' in error? Webster also says that the German peoples, including the Anglo-Saxons, were strongly influenced by Roman culture in their homeland before they came to Britain. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose. My comments not dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Comments by Eric Corbett
Here are a few issues I spotted on a quick read through:
"The 40 mm (1.6 in)-long fragment ..."
The hyphen shouldn't be applied to abbreviated units.
- Would you not still consider this a compound adjective requiring a hyphen?
-
- Why not? I may well be wrong, but I am unclear on what the rule is for compound adjectives with abbreviated units. I would have thought it analogous to something like "San Francisco-based," where there is no hyphen after the first word, but a hyphen after the second.
- ... whereas
"a horse head terminal ...
does require a hyphen.
- Right, added.
"The Horncastle helmet fragment represents a boar's head made of silver..."
No it doesn't; there is no "boar's head made of silver" that it's a representation of, it's a boar's head made of silver.
- Reworded, but if we're nitpicking, nor is it "a boar's head made of silver"; it is a silver representation of a boar's head.
- Perhaps you would have done well to have said that in the first place then? Eric Corbett 19:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- The difficulty in doing so is then in working in the gilding and the garnet eyes into the sentence. They seem best treated with the mention of silver, for then the materials are treated together. Indeed, if the sentence read
"...is a silver representation of a boar's head, parts of which are gilded, and with garnet eyes."
then it would suffer the same flaw that you discussed earlier: It does not represent a boar's head that is gilded and has garnets for eyes, but rather is a representation that uses silver, gilt, and garnets.
- The difficulty in doing so is then in working in the gilding and the garnet eyes into the sentence. They seem best treated with the mention of silver, for then the materials are treated together. Indeed, if the sentence read
" a prominent mane runs down the middle and terminates in a blunt snout, indicated by three grooved and gilded lines"
"Indicated isn't the right word here, maybe represented?
- I think "indicated by" is appropriate, meaning "shown," but have reworded to "defined by."
"This is also gilded ..."
Starting a sentence with "This" always introduces an element of uncertainty about what the subject being referred to actually is.
- Here, however, any confusion is tempered by the fact that the subject is the immediately preceding word, and that "skull" is the only singular noun in the preceding sentence.
- The writing seems a little stuttering in places, as in
"The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England. It was found by a Mr D. Turner, who was searching with a metal detector.
That would be better recast as a single flowing sentence.
- I agree that that part is a bit choppy, although I wrote it that way because there are already so many parts in the first sentence that it was hard to find a flow. One suggestion is
"The fragment was found on 1 May 2002 by a Mr. D. Turner, searching with a metal detector in Horncastle, a market town in Lincolnshire, England.
, but feel free to suggest others. In particular, I think where it was found is more important than who found it (especially when we only have an initial for his first name), and so would be inclined to place that later.
- I agree that that part is a bit choppy, although I wrote it that way because there are already so many parts in the first sentence that it was hard to find a flow. One suggestion is
Eric Corbett 19:02, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick read through, Eric Corbett. Responses are above. Your comments feel quite minor, so the oppose is surprising. What is your reason for it? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- The FA criteria require that the article complies with the MoS, which it does not. Eric Corbett 19:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- Could you be more specific, Eric Corbett? The MoS has 21 sections; I doubt you're referring to a failure to properly refer to compass points, but am otherwise at a bit of a loss. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
- I would point you in general to FA criteria 1a, but as a specific example in reference to my first point: "a non-breaking space (never hyphen) separates a value and unit symbol" can be found at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Numbers. Eric Corbett 20:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)